the only argument against gay marriage is that marriage is unnatural, its not the gay part thats unnatural, just the marriage part.
That's rather contrary to commonly-held belief. Any evidence? It seems couples have always paired off and it seems only natural for them to want to solidify their bond with a commitment.
As evidence, the man that a woman wants to procreate with is not the man said woman wants to raise the children with after procreation occurs.
Furthermore, it's a matter of the hen and the egg. Society trains us virtually from birth in our gender roles and produces this "dream" of a plan for us which naturally begins with marriage to a handsome/beautiful spouse with a really nice financial background, and ends with two Harvard Graduates who support you in your old age.
So the real question is, is marriage natural or is it a learned trait from having been raised within the confines of a married family?
We are not born with this desire, there are certainly no infants planning what gown to wear down the aisle. We are taught this desire, through watching TV and watching our own families.
For me, watching my family taught me that marriage is the worst thing you can do if you want to have a happy relationship and a healthy future. I have never desired marriage, and never plan to desire marraige. Last I checked, I was still a part of nature, therefor your "marriage is natural" hypothesis is invalid. =D
He also liked meth. He is really creepy if you watch him close, a real American hero.
I think all the religious arguments are just a smoke screen for the one and only real objection to homosexuality, which is "I think it's yucky, and I should be able to make your decisions for you." personally I think religion is "yucky" but I don't make other peoples decisions for them.
What i dont get about the whole marriage discussion is why noone has stood up and said..
Fine.. marriage is a religious thing. We will now remove all regulation on marriage and state oversight since that now makes it fall under separation of church and state. Custody can be handled by family court, probate law is in place for domestic partnership, and community property is a civil law issue. Done.
It makes all arguments from anti gay marriage disappear in a puff of their own reasoning.
From my perspective, the state should not be involved in marriage at all. From my perspective, Marriage has and always will be a "religious" thing. As such, let them have it.
However, since it is a purely religious function, all benefits and attributes associated by the government to the status of "being Married" should be removed. Everyone should be considered an individual by the government, regardless of relationship status and living situation.
If the state so wishes to continue with their program of social engineering (i.e. giving tax benefits to individuals in social groups they approve of, such as the married and the breeding), then they should simply engage in Civil Unions for all.
It is VERY simple. The Government, produces documents for civil unions already. Simply abolish the marriage license and replace it with a universal system of Civil Unions. That's what it is really about anyway, the government acknowledging your new special tax status and legal status as a single entity in regards to income/debt.
After that, it won't matter anymore. If someone who is legally joined by the state through Civil Union wants also to be recognized by the church as married, then they will have to take it up with their church. In the same way that if someone who is married wants their special government identity, they will have to fill out the paperwork to get a civil union.
It is really that simple. Of course, that will never happen because America is over-run by the overly religious. =/
As for a secular argument against homosexual marriage? It doesn't exist, because a true secular does not view human rights as being changeable based on the race, gender, or political bias of the human.
You say that separate but equal is not equal. I get it in the case of race: the facilities for blacks were less clean and less comfortable than those for whites. What is the crucial difference in the case of separate and equal arrangement for marriage vs domestic partnership, if the only difference is in the terminology? Once again, a rose is a rose by any other name.
I've already gone why the difference in terminology itself is an equality issue. That alone meets the threshold.
I probably didn't read it. Every reply of yours is like a term paper, and while I like ThinkAtheist, I have a life outside it as well. Give me the Readers Digest version. Maybe you'll go on about me not reading your entire posts, but you obviously use the "bury your opponent under a mountain of verbiage rather than being concise and direct" approach to winning an argument. It may fool others; it doesn't fool me.
Any good reply can be condensed. Condense it.
No. Don't blame me for your laziness. You asked questions and I responded to them.